TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (9) TMI 197
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - This appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 65/2008, dated 19-5-2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore. 2. Shri Pradyumna G. H. Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants and Shri V. Poorna Chandra Rao, learned SDR for the Revenue. 3. We heard both sides. The appellants imported goods under seven bi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....per that order, unless that order of the assessment has been reviewed or modified in appeal. 4. The learned advocate stated that the appellant paid higher duty on account of a glitch in the EDI system. He stated that even though there was change of duty on the impugned items from 10% to 5%, such change was not incorporated in the system, as a result of which the rate of duty indicated was 10% ins....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....would be governed by Section 154 of the Customs Act, wherein there is a provision to correct clerical mistakes. If the appellant had to pay higher duty on account of the glitches in the EDI system, it would not be proper on the part of Revenue to retain the excess duty and reject the refund claim on the ground that the assessment has not been challenged. In the interest of justice, we are inclined....